THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/292/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01063818201115 March 2012Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court followed its previous decision in a similar case. It held that the Tribunal was justified in its findings regarding the splitting of the contract and the non-applicability of interest on tax not deducted at source from the material component of the contract.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2007-08. The appeal raised questions about splitting a composite contract for tax deduction at source and the applicability of interest under Section 201(1A).

What were the issues?

Whether a composite contract can be split for TDS purposes, and whether interest under Section 201(1A) is leviable when tax is not deducted on the material component of a contract.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I IN THE HIGH COUWF OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS ThE I5 DAY OF RCH 2012 H?ESENT THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE N. KIJMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RA MALIMATH ff&NO292/ 2011 Betwn 1 The Commissioner of Income-a LTU, JSS Towers, BSK ifi Stage Ba%alore. 2 The IncomeTax Officer ma Perez Khlijlbhai Commercial Complea, Opp Clvii Hospital, Dr. Ambeciltar Roa& B lgaim3cX ) I 3 The Income Tax Officer, lit (TDS) JSS Towers, 85K ifi Stage BaxaIors • * AL1ANTS (By 5cc MM ShachaIa for KVAran, Adoste) And Karnatala Power Taz t viulasio Corporation Ltd

2 Major rfl Division Roopland Vidyagiri, Bagafla RPSR)NDFNT (By Sri. Cbythanya KK Adwcate) Th ffAisfilaunder9eetion2S)AoflTSct 1961 arising out of order dated 16.O&2011 passed in. ITA No.393Bangfl01O, kr the Asssmerat year 20D7 08, pra)ir4 that. this Honble Court may pleased to r thnnulate the substsndal qustions of Jaw stated ther&n This ETA Is coming on for Hearing this day NKUNAL J! dellwred the following: This appeal is by the rnue. The substantial qaeetions of law Gat arise for consideration in this appea’ are as ndr’r (l)Whether the Th(bunal was right in s’plittinq up the confraa, which, acrnrdmg to the revemie, was one of the composite contract tnt parts such as part of the contract attributable to he talus of the maawls involved in

0 U 3 x 4 z the exeasffon ofthe work. and otherpart O of the retrcd suet. as dvi! works and t’ te vat, that tax was reqain. to be clethtdect at source on4g in respect of 0 the work part of the coad and not j4 pc ofthe centrad? z (2)Whether the lWlntnal was just4fiecl 2 fri wnthicling that interest under Seaton 20241A) of the Irtawne Tax yjfl ieznczbl% the assessee was riot 1 liable to mctte any deductiars in respect of the value of the material part of the ama: though the contract was .one of whole nfl 3 2. This Court had an occasion to oonsider the appeale where the said questions irr%xdved in the case of The Comatts.toner afiname *e and titan dieppsed of on en date aix! has arrnwered the said subantial questions of law in bur of the asseasee and against the revenue.

1W i or wnai*a UI WUKI U KNA ASk I’116H COURt Of ICARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cow F a4 En 0Th tzj

More judgments on Section 201(1A)

All 4,608 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →